Not a fan of rule against trading won free agents

[Miami Marlins (Scott)]

Still think you should re-visit the rule of not being able to trade free agents you won. I got the three guys I wanted and have no intentions currently of trading them, but if someone had the money and bid on a player and then wanted to turn around and trade them - I don't see a problem with that at all. In fact, I think it opens up some activity so that owners of teams with high payrolls can still kinda be involved in the free agency process. IE: if the Phillies had only $20M to spend, but were willing to trade prime players for a free agent that the owner of a weaker team with more payroll flexibility won, I think that's OK. Any one else have ideas or comments?

[San Diego Padres (Brian)]

You will eventually be able to trade them, but at least not until after free agency is over. This keeps teams from bidding on players they don't even want just to turn around and flip them for a profit. That way teams don't keep bidding $50M on players, then trading them and spending that $50M again. This issue came up a lot in my other league which is why they implemented this rule and why I carried it over.

[Miami Marlins (Scott)]

I appreciate the reply Brian. While I don't currently have plans to trade any free agents I won, I don't see where the scenario you've described causes any problems. It's no different than trading for a player that's not a free agent and then flipping him for another player. If you've done your job and won a player and then flip them for "a profit" as you say, what's wrong with that? Whether I'm trading a guy who costs $.40 or $100 like Reyes, I still have to find a buyer.

And saying you can trade them - but not till after the season starts, or free agency ends, etc. - makes it sound like you think teams trading players don't have the same intentions then - to make a profit or help your team get better. I hear you saying that people would win a FA for $50M, then trade that player and then get the money back. Again, what's wrong with that? Sounds like someone got upset they were outbid on a player they wanted and so they immediately rushed and made a new rule to combat what upset them. That's not the reason to make a new rule. And if an owner likes to bid on a player they don't really want - just so they can trade them - I'm ok with that because they're also assuming a big risk that there will be a buyer for that player.

Also, if you're an active trader like many of us are, you may have to make more than one deal with more than one team to get the pieces you need to get the player you really wanted to begin with. Obviously, some of the active traders in our league had assumed it would be OK to trade won free agents or they wouldn't have already put them on their trading blocks. So I'm cool with doing what the majority wants but would like to hear some other comments.

[San Diego Padres (Brian)]

I feel there is a very big difference in trading a free agent and trading a contracted player. If I win a free agent, I obtain him with nothing but cash (that replenishes itself every offseason, unlike when you trade cap away). I then trade him to Team X for an All Star 1B. In other words, I just obtained an All Star 1B for absolutely nothing, as I get all that cap back that I used to win the free agent. When you trade contracted players you have to give up something to get a return.
The reason this is implemented only during the offseason, is so that people can't keep dipping back into free agency after multiple trades. You bid on a free agent because you intend to keep him, not just to immediately turn around and sell him. The goal of free agency is that lesser teams get the best players (the idea being lesser teams have lower payrolls as generally better players make higher salaries). So for higher level teams to buy and then immediately flip a player, they are exploiting the system.

[Miami Marlins (Scott)]

In real life, the higher level teams exploit the system all the time! Here in fantasy world however, every team is considered a higher level team. You either have no players and lots of payroll or no payroll left cause you've spent it on high cost (usually much better players) or lastly, you're kinda mid-level with some good players and some cash as well. And if you pick up a fee agent, I do agree you've done that without giving up someone - but you can only have the available payroll to actually win that free agent because you've sacrificed in other areas to keep your payroll down. So it's never really getting a player "for nothing." In our league, when the Nationals start paying 15 - 20% of their entire cap just for Pujols salary next season, AFTER spending $100 to get him, they certainly won't feel like they go him for nothing.

I enjoy the dialogue in conversations like this, so please don't interpret my comments as if I'm upset. I'm not. I just think the rule doesn't make enough practical sense to keep it, that's all.

[St. Louis Cardinals (Brian)]

I like the rule the way it is. If you bid on a free agent, you should hang onto him.